Yes, actually I do. Because rape is a much more powerful word than sexual assault. And at least that would be what they plead guilty to taking part in.
I don't much have an opinion about her calling them out for what they did, but it seems there are conflicting reports about exactly what she said, and what she even thinks happened---if she is out lying about what they did to her, it's not only dangerous for the boys (which fine, if you don't give a fuck about them, I don't really either) but does a huge disservice to women who are ACTUALLY raped. It's gross to celebrate a woman lying about being raped---or stretching circumstances to make it seem like she might have been raped.
I do agree with you that it's wrong to say you are raped and that is not what happened, and not the charges that were brought forth in this case. However, sexual assault can mean many many things in different jurisdictions, and in some, can very well mean rape as most people understand and know it, but doesn't actually call it rape.
All this to say in this case, in this case what she have experienced, may not be rape what most understand rape to be or the law for her jurisdiction, in her mind (a child's mind, mind you), she felt the sexual violation she experienced was rape. I don't think she was worrying about the use of the term when tweeting about it. She was tweeting about her violating experience.
None of that changes anything from the boys perspective. Or the 37 year old that just got raped for real. Just as the boys, who in their minds (child's minds, mind you) likely thought they were just playing around with the drunk girl, there are consequences for her actions. She should not be getting a pat on the back for violating the law and lying about what happened to her.
in the last several weeks, months, whatever, of news coverage on this, there has never been any debate that she was sexually assaulted. That these boys had sex with her, without her consent. They pled guilty to that. So...what are you upset about her 'lying' about? Because I"m confused as hell as to what in that is objectionable.
Wait. Where did they plead guilty to having sex with her without her consent?
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 22, 2012 20:34:25 GMT -5
emmy, he pled to 1st degree sexual assault. That's pretty much some form of rape afaik.
And the pictures they took were of her after the assault, which they then shared with their school friends. I don't know the details of the pictures, but I have always gotten the impression it was more than just her naked.
emmy, he pled to 1st degree sexual assault. That's pretty much some form of rape afaik.
And the pictures they took were of her after the assault, which they then shared with their school friends. I don't know the details of the pictures, but I have always gotten the impression it was more than just her naked.
Do you have a source for this? Because I just read the transcript of the interview she did with ABC and didn't see anything about assault.
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 22, 2012 20:42:09 GMT -5
Dietrich was assaulted by the pair after passing out at a party. They later shared photos of the assault with friends. "For months, I cried myself to sleep," Dietrich said. "I couldn't go out in public places." On June 26, the boys pleaded guilty to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. Terms of their plea agreement were not released.
Post by StrawberryBlondie on Aug 22, 2012 20:47:24 GMT -5
This is the relevant KY statute:
510.110 Sexual abuse in the first degree. (1) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when: (a) He or she subjects another person to sexual contact by forcible compulsion; or (b) He or she subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he or she: 1. Is physically helpless; 2. Is less than twelve (12) years old; or 3. Is mentally incapacitated; or (c) Being twenty-one (21) years old or more, he or she: 1. Subjects another person who is less than sixteen (16) years old to sexual contact; 2. Engages in masturbation in the presence of another person who is less than sixteen (16) years old and knows or has reason to know the other person is present; or 3. Engages in masturbation while using the Internet, telephone, or other electronic communication device while communicating with a minor who the person knows is less than sixteen (16) years old, and the minor can see or hear the person masturbate; or (d) Being a person in a position of authority or position of special trust, as defined in KRS 532.045, he or she, regardless of his or her age, subjects a minor who is less than eighteen (18) years old, with whom he or she comes into contact as a result of that position, to sexual contact or engages in masturbation in the presence of the minor and knows or has reason to know the minor is present or engages in masturbation while using the Internet, telephone, or other electronic communication device while communicating with a minor who the person knows is less than sixteen (16) years old, and the minor can see or hear the person masturbate. (2) Sexual abuse in the first degree is a Class D felony, unless the victim is less than twelve (12) years old, in which case the offense shall be a Class C felony.
Also, I did see that the photos were passed around---while I think it's possible, I feel it's highly unlikely that if the photos were sent to others that they would not be seen by her.
Also, in watching the ABC video, it states that the exact charges were classified because of the kids' ages so only 'felony sexual abuse" is used. In looking that up for the state of KY, it states that all degrees (tho first degree apears to be the only felony charge) of SA consist of forceable sexual contact. So... That's a leap to rape how?
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 22, 2012 20:55:50 GMT -5
It's not a leap. That's the point. You're the only one accusing people of making such a leap. I agree that the story in the OP didn't show rape, but the story is a couple months old with more details.
I saw 1st degree, not just felony, in multiple writeups. I feel like that's probably been confirmed if it's so universal. So, yeah, she was raped.
It's not a leap. That's the point. You're the only one accusing people of making such a leap. I agree that the story in the OP didn't show rape, but the story is a couple months old with more details.
I saw 1st degree, not just felony, in multiple writeups. I feel like that's probably been confirmed if it's so universal. So, yeah, she was raped.
No. She wasn't. If you read the ky SA statute vs that of rape you would see that the distinction there Is far greater than in other states. Any non consensual sexual contact can be construed as first degree sexual abuse in KY. KY has a separate statute for rape. They are not at all similar.
The ABC interview is from 08.22. The victim does not claim there that she was raped or even really attacked at all in it. So yeah, it is a leap to go to rape in this case.
Even if it wasn't rape, it seems it was everything possible except rape. So we can argue definitions forever but in the end they did a shitty thing and are now paying for it. Im fine with that.
Even if it wasn't rape, it seems it was everything possible except rape. So we can argue definitions forever but in the end they did a shitty thing and are now paying for it. Im fine with that.
This exactly. Something tells me that stopping short of actual nonconsentual penetration doesn't really result in a different outcome for this little creep. The Ivy League is still not gonna want you, buddy.
Also my first thought upon seeing the thread title was "well...good"
Yup! Libel is always a good thing!
Then let them sue her.
Honestly, I don't see why that girl can be held to a judge's gag order that originates from the boys' plea bargain.
She never agreed to the terms of the plea bargain and wasn't consulted in the matter. That plea bargain was between the state and the offenders. Seems to me that she can say whatever the hell she likes, and if they feel it's libel or slander, they need to sue her. I've never understood the concept of using civil court for criminal acts that went unpunished, a la OJ Simpson, but maybe she can countersue them.
Sorry I just picked my computer back up because J got sick and I had to deal with all that. He's finally in bed. Anyway, the original title of the article said sexual assault but I had to shorten it to fit. Sorry, Emmy, for using the "wrong" term but, like most people, when I read sexual assault in the first degree I assume rape. Sorry I wasn't around to clarify. Either way this little twerp got what he deserved. Rape or no rape being violated in that way is life altering. As a victim of rape I don't care about the distinction because I know how devastating that can be for any girl.
Doubtful. Didn't Emmybean argue in favor of the H who took and posted nude pics of his wife without her consent? This board seemed to conveniently ignore it when it happened even though some non-regs tried to call her out. This seems par for her course.
Doubtful. Didn't Emmybean argue in favor of the H who took and posted nude pics of his wife without her consent? This board seemed to conveniently ignore it when it happened even though some non-regs tried to call her out. This seems par for her course.
Bitch just stop flapping your twatcreamed face---I did no such thing.
You know what's awesome? The sexual predators can go on Twitter and clarify they only admitted to sexual assault! Now that is the marketplace of ideas at work. Hell, they can even post the slip sheet with their plea on it to prove they only sexually assaulted her.
But if they think they are going to win a libel claim because she called them rapists and really all they are are sexual predators, well, that's not going to be an easy case to win. And, FWIW, I don't think even juvenile courts impose gag orders on the victims. The court records are sealed normally but it's not like the judge would have ordered her to never discuss the crime ever. Aspects of the case that didn't happen in court aren't sealed and it's certainly her right to discuss her own sexual assault.
I'm actually feeling emmy in this thread, but I wonder if this is the key:
Dietrich's anger stemmed from a June hearing in which the teenagers confessed to felony sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. She and her family were reportedly frustrated by the plea bargain the boys made with the state.
Is it possible that they did actually rape her, but the plea bargain brought it down to something less than rape? If so, that would explain why she is using the word rape.
I'm actually feeling emmy in this thread, but I wonder if this is the key:
Dietrich's anger stemmed from a June hearing in which the teenagers confessed to felony sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. She and her family were reportedly frustrated by the plea bargain the boys made with the state.
Is it possible that they did actually rape her, but the plea bargain brought it down to something less than rape? If so, that would explain why she is using the word rape.
This is a good point 2V.
Also, someone posted a quote from the victim where she talks about how they weren't found guilty of rape but she still feels they raped her. It may be one of those situations where she is using the term more emotionally and not legally.
Doubtful. Didn't Emmybean argue in favor of the H who took and posted nude pics of his wife without her consent? This board seemed to conveniently ignore it when it happened even though some non-regs tried to call her out. This seems par for her course.
Are you on crack? One, that wasn't emmy. And two, the regs most certainly did not ignore that topic - the person you are referring to was flamed to high heaven and there was much tossing around of the beloved, "I feel like I don't even know you you anymore" hyperbole.
I'm actually feeling emmy in this thread, but I wonder if this is the key:
Dietrich's anger stemmed from a June hearing in which the teenagers confessed to felony sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. She and her family were reportedly frustrated by the plea bargain the boys made with the state.
Is it possible that they did actually rape her, but the plea bargain brought it down to something less than rape? If so, that would explain why she is using the word rape.
I would buy all of this if it seemed at all that she was in fact raped. But nothing SHE has said about the events of that night have pointed to something close to rape. Yet she--and others--are throwing the word around, and talking like its assumed that these boys fucked her, etc. there is no reason to think that's what happened at this point, so why do people continue to do it over and over?
FTR I am not defending the boys---not even a little bit. I just don't thing young girls should be encouraged to lie about rape or SA. And that is exactly what's happening here.
I'm actually feeling emmy in this thread, but I wonder if this is the key:
Dietrich's anger stemmed from a June hearing in which the teenagers confessed to felony sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. She and her family were reportedly frustrated by the plea bargain the boys made with the state.
Is it possible that they did actually rape her, but the plea bargain brought it down to something less than rape? If so, that would explain why she is using the word rape.
I would buy all of this if it seemed at all that she was in fact raped. But nothing SHE has said about the events of that night have pointed to something close to rape. Yet she--and others--are throwing the word around, and talking like its assumed that these boys fucked her, etc. there is no reason to think that's what happened at this point, so why do people continue to do it over and over?
FTR I am not defending the boys---not even a little bit. I just don't thing young girls should be encouraged to lie about rape or SA. And that is exactly what's happening here.
I agree with you. Rape is a loaded word and really shouldn't be used unless it's really what happened.
What did they do to her exactly then? I'm very confused.
I have to say if someone said to me "That boy sexually assaulted someone" vs. "That boy raped someone" I would look at "that boy" exactly the same when evaluating his character.
Read the statutes. There is no confusion between Sexual abuse and rape in the state of KY.
GRanted, I'm clueless about these things, but I did not see the word "rape" in the earlier post stating the statute. Do statutes typically use the word outright when it is speaking of rape? I woudl think that they would. I did see the word masturbation quite a bit though.